The Reformation was a huge change within the Church in the C16th. Whereas the Church during the medieval era was led universally by the Pope, the Reformation marked a separation between "Protestants" and "Roman Catholics". Many people today complain about the division of the Christian church, and many non-religious people find the number of Christian denominations overwhelming. How can one faith cause so many arguments, serious conflict and even wars? Why can't Christians just belong to one church globally?
In looking at why the Reformation happened, these issues become very important. Was Martin Luther simply a man with an axe to grind against the pope and Catholic authorities? Was John Calvin a heartless leader who relentlessly pursued for his own interpretation of the Bible to be accepted?
To start with, both the Catholic church today as well as the Protestants admit to various problems within the pre-Reformation Church. Christianity dominated the world all over the Roman empire, and part of the method of the medieval church to "convert" pagans was to incorporate some of their festivals, practices and superstitions into Christianity. Our main Christian festivals, Christmas and Easter, are timed with the pagan festivals which used to be celebrated at these times of year. Priests would chant and bless various objects or places much like a witch casting a spell, and so increasingly lay people were confused as to how to distinguish between "magic" (which was forbidden) and legitimate religion.
Another major problem within the medieval church was corruption. The huge influence and wealth of the church had made it a lucrative business for men to pose as holy friars and keep several mistresses. The practice of indulgences was widely used and many priests abused the trust of poor peasants who were desperate to avoid purgatory or help their loved ones get to heaven.
After Luther's 95 Theses were nailed to the door in Wittenberg, the Catholic church underwent a "reformation" of its own, to deal with the abuses of authority and to tighten up the discipline system of church leaders.
However, the major concern of the Reformation was not church practices, but doctrine. Because doctrine (beliefs and teachings) was the root cause of many of the practices which the reformers spoke against. And key elements of doctrine are the reason why Catholics and Protestants are divided to this day.
The disputed doctrine is not simply a secondary issue of robes or no robes, candles or no candles. The big question of the Reformation was:
How can human beings find salvation and be accepted by God?
The medieval church had come to the understanding that humans were fallen and sinful, but rational and able to respond to God through reason. Life as a Christian, to them, was all about receiving God's grace and doing your best to love God and your neighbour. They believed God would grant eternal life as a just reward for this. Mystics also emphasised religious, spiritual experience.
Martin Luther, through studying the book of Romans in the New Testament, came to the understanding that God's righteousness is His gift to humankind. He has acted to rescue sinners and bring them justification. Salvation is something God has already done for us, outside us, in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Luther realised, after all his soul-searching and rigorous cycle of confession and penance, that humans cannot earn their own salvation. This has been achieved for us through Jesus Christ's death on the cross. Our proper response is to believe, and the experience of the Christian life is one of struggle, as our sinful nature battles against our new identities as children of God.
For Luther, the Reformation had to happen, because the eternal destiny of souls depended on it. If people did not know the liberating truth of the gospel, they would die without knowing Christ. They may attend church every week, but if they didn't understand GRACE (God's Riches At Christ's Expense), then they had no real hope. Luther tried to avoid conflict but it became impossible for him to stay silent. The far-reaching implications of his discovery were only just becoming apparent.
4 comments:
Dear Sophie,
I hope you don’t mind if I respond to some of the points you make!
Firstly, the acceptance of flaws in some of the practices of the Church pre-Reformation, somewhat undeniable: I think we can accept also, however, that this does not mean that the Roman Catholic Church was, or is, ‘wrong’ – we ought to distinguish between doctrinal and practical teaching: that there existed, and indeed exists, corruption is terrible, but possibly unavoidable; rather, what is important is that the doctrinal teaching of the Church remained, and remains, I believe, true.
This is indeed where Luther played an important role in the Church: there were problems, to which he drew attention, and subsequently the Church has made amends and sought to correct the errors that developed in some of the practices of the Church. This is quite easy to see: no indulgences can, or could, ever be sold, for example.
What Luther also did was highlight some misunderstandings about the soteriology of the Church: that is, that our Salvation is through God alone, that Jesus died on the Cross. Now, in orthodox Roman Catholic teaching, this is, and could never be in doubt. The nuance that I think we lose, however, is that Luther believed in the Sacraments: outward and visible signs of inward and spiritual graces, instituted by Our Lord, made efficacious by the Holy Spirit. Now, these are quite clear in the Bible: Baptism, and the Eucharist, certainly, but the Lutheran Church accepts the other five Sacraments of Marriage, Confession and Absolution, Holy Orders, Confirmation and Last Rights as having sound scriptural basis (I wonder whether you agree?).
Now, if we are to accept that these are Sacraments, the question arises as to what is their purpose? This is where I think Catholic theology and understanding really has an upper hand: whilst all Salvation is through Christ, what did Christ, the Incarnate Word, instruct us to do? These things, certainly. Now, it should be no offence to Scripture to follow these divinely instituted practices and indeed accepting that they are divinely instituted is an act of Faith! If we are to now accept Salvation by Faith, these things, whilst not necessary, perhaps (complicated word, I believe, in this context), they are acts of Faith, and if we can do them, we ought to, accepting divine institutions as Divine (thus they are, in some ways required!).
I think then, the problem that you really put forward at the end was the lack of education about the Sacraments in the Church. The problems Luther saw were surmountable, but just required people to know why the Sacraments were important, which comes down to a distinction in Protestant/Catholic belief I have seen quite vividly this last term: the Protestant sole emphasis on the Crucifixion, and the Catholic joint study with the meaning of the Incarnation. Now, I don’t mean this to be offensive, rather to point out a distinction. Because Salvation, so say we all, is made possible by the Crucifixion, this is made the centre of Protestant thought. Because Salvation is made possible by God, perhaps there is more of a slant in Catholicism to question the nature of God which is shown most clearly in the Life of Christ. This, I think, is a distinction of interpretation, rather than a major theological difference, in many ways, at least it was originally. The problem occurs when people misunderstand that we are talking from slightly different angles about similar things.
I hope this is interesting, and would be grateful of your thoughts!
In Christ,
Phil
Dear Phil
Thanks so much for commenting. I thought this topic might interest you!
I wrote the second post on the Reformation, about the teaching side, before I saw your comment. I guess there'll be quite a bit of cross-over here, as you mention the difference between practice and doctrinal teaching. I think Luther originally wanted to cleanse the church from corruption, but bigger doctrinal issues emerged which he had to take a stand on. Essentially, the Council of Trent established the Roman Catholic Church's doctrine and beliefs which still stand today (and this Council was held in response to the criticisms of the church and various Lutheran theological ideas).
You are right to highlight sacraments as a key issue. I think I personally would accept Baptism and the Eucharist as sacraments, but that doesn't mean I think marriage has an unsound scriptural basis (!) Things may be good and right... but a sacrament is something more specific. I've been reading Alistair McGrath's 'Reformation Thought' and he defines the sacraments, from the perspective of the reformers, as representing the promises of God, through objects of the everyday world. So, in the Eucharist, the bread and the wine reassure us of the reality of the divine promise of forgiveness. It also reminds us of our response to the grace in faith- we need to receive the bread and wine, and we need to receive Jesus Christ.
McGrath writes that the sacraments were a key issue for the reformers because they represented 'all that was bad about medieval theology.' He explains that the medieval sacramental system gave a totally unjustified prominence to the role of the priest. Luther attacked the way that wine was withheld from lay people, the doctrine of transubstantiation, and the idea that the priest made an offering on behalf of the people.
The sacraments are, like the Incarnation, examples of how God reaches down to our level as humans to give us something to hold on to, as in our weakness we struggle to take Him at His Word. Sometimes in Catholic churches there is so much emphasis on the sacrament itself and all its pomp and regalia that the purpose of the sacrament- to remind you of God's promises- is lost. That's why the reformers wrote so much about them. They wanted to simplify the sacraments so that people could focus more clearly on their meaning and significance, and not get carried away in outward ceremony.
Let me know what you think!
Dear Sophie,
Well, much to discuss as ever! I want to respond, naturally, to the newer post as well, but will do it all here!
Firstly, I want to pass on some wisdom that Father Alban, who instructed me, explained: for Catholics, believe it or not, the Pope is not important; the Papacy, and the See of Peter, is where any importance lies and this is because we believe, with the words "On this rock I shall build my Church" (Rock = St Peter), Christ gave Peter His authority of the Church militant on Earth (c.f. Power of the Keys, "whatever you bind... whatever you loose"). Now, I have recently understood that many Protestants do not accept Apostolic Succession: I don't know what you think, but given that we Catholics accept it (laying on of hands, 1 Timothy 4:14), the statement that "Christ alone as head of the Church, not the Pope", is perhaps slightly misrepresenting our beliefs! Christ, and indeed only Christ, is the head of the Church, but Christ gave the Church His authority to minister and guide the Church Militant. The Pope derives all his authority from the bishops before him, who all derive their authority from St Peter, who derives his from Christ himself.
Sorry, that was a long explanation, but I'm afraid I felt it needed clarification! (How many times must we be accused of worshipping the Pope?! I hope that gave a decent answer, but please do write back if more is needed!)
I would like now to think about your analysis of James, that "James' main point is that true faith shows itself in the lifestyle of the Christian". Now, I think this is where our practice of the Sacraments is so horribly misunderstood and misconstrued!
1. We are saved by Christ
2. Christ instructed us, and similarly Scripture instructs us, to follow and trust Christ to be saved
3. If we believe Christ to be the Son of God and Saviour of Mankind, we should follow the example he set us
4. Christ instituted the Sacraments
5. We should receive the Sacraments as best and as appropriately as we can
6. Following the teachings of Christ, we are saved by Christ
7. We should hold the Sacraments in high regard, and do our best to receive them
I'm sorry for the clinical bullet points, but it was the clearest way for me to explain that! I shall deal with the nature of the Sacraments in a moment, but I hope up until now that we can conclude that we are saved by Christ through the Sacraments in some way.
Now, you drew attention to Luther thinking that he could not confess enough to merit heaven - no Catholic could say that confession alone merits heaven - Sacramental Confession, however, is not mere confession: it requires true contrition and penance, which we believe are what Christ Himself taught us to try and do so that we might be made worthy of the Kingdom of Heaven. Christ did not say, "Just believe", but told us how to live our lives: we believe that Sacramental Confession turns us more closely to God, being of His own divine institution. Luther then, if this is what he was worried about, had little to be concerned about - Confession is a gift from God to allow us to realign more closely with him. It also requires much prayer before Confession to ask God for the power to make a good Confession.
True, Sacramental Confession, as with all the other Sacraments, is meant to turn us towards God by the divine institution of His Holy Son, and, as the prayer of absolution goes "God, the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of His Son
has reconciled the world to Himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us
for the forgiveness of sins" before the Priest pronounces (notice does not absolve) the absolution of the sinner.
I hope this also defends "Catholics were teaching in their use of Sacraments that men obtain grace by offering God the Mass/devotions/penance" - Yes, we do, but because the ability to do so is a gift from God - God is the giver of the Sacraments, and we are saved, and obtain grace, as a free gift from God, undeserved except through Christ.
To make a point about the doctrinal issues, I do take note of your phrase "The idea had developed that the bread and wine, once blessed by the priest, actually turned into the body and blood" - St Justin Martyr in the Second Century that they believed in at least a form of Transubstantiation: (I have never used this website before, but have read the text elsewhere at a reliable source!)
http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/532/Sunday_Eucharist_in_the_Early_Church_St._Justin_Martyr.html
Now, if Luther saw this as mysticism and too "magical", that is fine, but I think that if the Word became Flesh, the Word can become Bread. I have as much reason to think this "magical" or "pagan" as the Incarnation itself, in some ways. If we then seem to emphasise this Sacrament so much, it seems only right - the presence of the Body and Precious Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord is not something to take lightly - this is why we have "pomp and regalia" - because it is deserved! We genuflect and bow so many times because we believe it to actually be Our Lord present!
The "purpose of the Sacrament" is no longer just "to remind you of God's promises", although it does this, but also the act of the Sacrament is an act of God's love present in front of us as well! We can then argue about the doctrinal issues of partaking in Communion under one kind, but for us to ever agree on this, we must agree on transubstantiation. (And not dissimilarly for the role of the Priest - who, as Wikipedia so rightly states, should be thought of as the Person through whom God chooses to work - there is precedence for this - look at the Valley of the Dry Bones - God commands the man to breathe over the bones, the man being the minister of the work of God.
I hope this is interesting, are you in my neck of the woods any time in the near future? Would love to see you!
All the best,
In Christ,
Phil
Post a Comment